I do think corruption in the umpiring world is highly unlikely, but that Youhanna decision was an outrage.

One thing no-one's mentioned...

if the decision was such an outrage (in other words, the implication is such that it was obvious), why was there an appeal? Does this implicate the fielding side as people who would knowingly take advantage of a situation knowing full well that what they were suggesting had in fact NOT happened?

In other words, if the umpire was incompetent (which appears on here to be an 'at best' opinion today) are the Aussies in taking advantage of such a pitiful old man who dances a little jig on occasion, clearly making an exhibition of himself in front of thousands, just a bunch of skullduggerous, contemptible cheats?